Why America Is Dividing

Charles Murray has done it again. His new book, Coming Apart, has blown the lid off the most crucial development socially in the United States over the last 50 years: the rise off bastardy. He concentrates on whites.

The book is receiving a lot of attention. His books usually do. Losing Ground in 1984 was a great book. It exposed the welfare state as a fraud. It has not decreased poverty. It was right, and the Left attacked it.

The Bell Curve a decade later was a great book. It exposed the new elite, based on IQ, and the liberal university system that trains this elite. It was right on both counts, and the book was savaged by liberals.

His new book is getting attention, but the liberals are ignoring its main argument: the rise of bastard culture since 1960. Here is what he writes. His two towns are fictional: Fishtown (lower-class white) and Belmont (upper class white).

Marriage: In 1960, extremely high proportions of whites in both Belmont and Fishtown were married—94% in Belmont and 84% in Fishtown. In the 1970s, those percentages declined about equally in both places. Then came the great divergence. In Belmont, marriage stabilized during the mid-1980s, standing at 83% in 2010. In Fishtown, however, marriage continued to slide; as of 2010, a minority (just 48%) were married. The gap in marriage between Belmont and Fishtown grew to 35 percentage points, from just 10.

Read More at The Tea Party Economist By Gary North, Tea Party Economist

Finally, the Truth About “Atomic Iran”

WASHINGTON – Some reporters are just ahead of their time.

That is surely the case with WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi, a two-time No. 1 New York Times best-selling author, who penned, in 2006, “Atomic Iran,” a book that exposed, for the first time, the ugly truth about the imminent nuclear threat to America and Israel from the Persian Gulf.

Now that the whole world is recognizing the threat posed by Iran, WND Books is making the groundbreaking book available to the public, again, at steep discounts.

Additionally, this book uniquely exposes the U.S. politicians who made a nuclear Iran possible.

Uncovered is a web of pro-Iranian financiers who make significant campaign contributions to political leaders who affect U.S. trade policy towards Iran and are able to work at normalizing diplomatic relations, thereby legitimizing the rogue republic. This poses an immediate security threat to the United States. It allows the regime to take advantage of relaxations in the Patriot Act to begin importing terrorists under the disguise of diplomatic personnel.

Read More at WND

Voter Fraud: Research Study Suggests Major Election Problems

In a typical system, election officials get information about a voter’s identity, eligibility, address, and contact information through a form completed at a public agency, such as a county election office or motor vehicles office, or through an unregulated third party voter registration group, such as a campaign or advocacy organization (ACORN, Project Vote). – The Pew Center

A major non-partisan research project suggests that the U.S. is fast approaching the status of Third-World Nation when it comes to the integrity of local and national elections.

“Our democratic process requires an effective system for maintaining accurate voter registration information. Voter registration lists are used to assign precincts, send sample ballots, provide polling place information, identify and verify voters at polling places, and determine how resources, such as paper ballots and voting machines, are deployed on Election Day” state Pew Center statisticians.

These systems are plagued with errors and inefficiencies that waste taxpayer dollars, undermine voter confidence, and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of our elections, according to Pew researchers.

Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient, according to Pew Center statement.

Read More at newswithviews.com By NWV News Writer Jim Kouri

Rand Paul’s ‘Palinesque’ (not Shermanesque) veep answer

One thing that has been lost amid the speculation over whether or not Rep. Ron Paul’s symbiotic relationship with former Gov. Mitt Romney involves some sort of corrupt bargain is simply the candor with which Sen. Rand Paul actually answered the veep question.

Ask Sen. Marco Rubio if he will be the running mate, and you’re likely to get some version of this: “I am not going to be the vice presidential nominee … The answer is going to be no.”

That might fall short of Gen. Sherman’s: “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected” — but it’s certainly not campaigning for the job, either.

When it comes to garnering the veep nod, most candidates — even those who secretly long for the position — prefer to play coy. Sure, they may hint that they’d like to be considered, thus sending signals that an offer would not be rebuffed. But generally, potential running mates tend to deny interest. After all, it might be seen as unseemly to advertise such ambition. (And in courtship, after all, half the fun is often in being chased.)

That wasn’t the case, however, for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. When asked if she would consider being John McCain’s running mate, Palin openly confessed: “…Yes, I would. Somehow being able to be in a position to help our nation. How absolutely amazing an opportunity would that be? So yeah, I’m interested in that.”

Read More at The Daily Caller By Matt K. Lewis, The Daily Caller

It’s Time to Hold the Obama Administration Accountable

While the mainstream media are still overwhelmingly intent on seeing Barack Obama reelected as President, a number of journalists and news organizations are apparently having second thoughts. Or at least they are willing to examine the claims and representations that the Obama administration continues to put forth. This has been the surprising case regarding Obama’s State of the Union address in late January and the budget that he proposed in mid-February. Hopefully this may mark a turning point in how the media allow themselves to be used by the Obama administration, but don’t count on it. More likely it is isolated incidents of self-respect, and an acknowledgement that they can differentiate between normal political spin and outright lies.

The double standard still could not be more clear. During the many Republican debates there has been a constant effort to get the candidates to provide sound bites for Democratic ads during the general election, calling each other liars and flip-floppers, moderates, liberals, influence peddlers, and plutocrats. The ABC New Hampshire debate in which George Stephanopoulos spent a substantial amount of time on the burning issue of whether or not states have the right to ban contraception seemed like a Saturday Night Live skit in how it attempted to make the candidates appear radical. But now it looks more like coordination with the White House in preparation for their battle to make contraception a “free” entitlement for all under ObamaCare.

President Obama rarely faces such questions. He has been able to largely stay above the fray, managing the news flow, picking softball interviewers like NBC’s Matt Lauer before the Super Bowl, and ABC’s Diane Sawyer a few days before that. But what is new, and has the ability to change the dynamics, is that some of the loyal left in the media have begun to actually directly challenge Obama’s claims and narrative. Not enough of them, but it is starting to happen.

There are still hard-to-believe spectacles such as the Super Bowl on February 4 that played like an infomercial for the reelection of President Obama, in front of an audience estimated at 110 million people. But what is new is that within a day of the President’s State of the Union (SOTU) address, the Associated Press (AP) and The Washington Post were both out with detailed refutations of some of Obama’s signature claims—claims to do with the auto industry, the green energy industry, job creation, the size and scope of government under his term in office, Afghanistan, tax fairness, energy production, and relations with Israel.

During halftime of the Super Bowl was the much talked about two-minute Chrysler ad, with Clint Eastwood, calling it “halftime in America” and seeming to endorse a second Obama term, while suggesting the President was in the middle of a great accomplishment, namely saving America’s auto industry and with it the city of Detroit, Michigan.

Read More at Gulag Bound By Roger Aronoff, Gulag Bound

Media Power Defining Santorum

Over the past thirty years, a strange thing has happened on the path to the presidency. With the advent of the twenty-four-hour news cycle and the proliferation of media outlets, potential presidential nominees can no longer control or establish their image in the minds of the public.

This is particularly true of someone whom the public does not know. Barack Obama was a virtual unknown when he decided to run for the White House in 2007. But he had three major characteristics that worked in his favor: 1) he was of African-American descent; 2) as Joe Biden put, it he was “clean and articulate”; and 3) he was a liberal Democrat. He thus became the darling of the mainstream and entertainment media and nearly all the cable news outlets as well as many websites. This set the stage for the image which settled into the minds of the majority of the public.

This image was of not only a candidate who could deliver a good speech, but also of a person who had a positive vision for America, had the interest of the people at heart, and because of his unique racial background could heal the age-old racial wounds in the country. Obama did little beyond read his teleprompter-assisted speeches, which were full of inane platitudes, and hold his own in debates to achieve this lofty image in the minds of the people. The overall media, Hollywood, and the entertainment press did the rest.

It is vital that presidential candidates, particularly in the Republican primary process, understand the vital importance of not allowing the overall media/entertainment cabal to establish their image in the minds of the public. The vast majority of this group is hostile to any Republican, but in particular to conservative candidates.

This is particularly important for anyone who is not well-known to the public and has not been on center stage for many years.

Read More at American Thinker By Steve McCann, American Thinker

‘Anomic Breakdown’ and Beyond

The bankster controlled elitist states around the world are collapsing. Greece is a preview. So what is happening in Greece? Anomic breakdown.

Under the headline: Struggling Greeks losing belief in the state, Paul Mason at the BBC reports:

During the autumn, Greek commentators began to speak of “anomic breakdown”, where people begin to disobey laws and social norms individually.

There are all kinds of factions developing: hard-right, extreme left, anti-German, most appear unaware that central planning is itself the problem. Most just want their central planners in power. Here’s Mason again:

The polls tell one part of the story. The Pasok party, which tried and failed to implement the first austerity bill until replaced by a technocratic coalition in October, is now down to 11%. (Epikaria poll, 16 February 2012)

New Democracy, the centre-right party that expected to form the government – it has been a two- horse race since the restoration of democracy in the 1980s – is also in trouble. Its own vote – 27.5% – is not enough to form a government. And 20 MPs just got expelled for opposing the bailout.

Read More at lewrockwell.com By Robert Wenzel, lewrockwell.com

Putin Arms as Obama Disarms

Over the past week, we’ve seen reports that President Obama plans to reduce the size of the US military and disarm a large portion of our nuclear arsenal. His forced Pentagon cuts will result in nearly 100,000 service men and women being eliminated from the armed forces. He also wants to scrap 80% of America’s nuclear weapons.

Obama is also pushing to revamp the military retirement system which would greatly reduce the number of career personnel. It’s obvious that he has no respect for those who serve in the military or who desire to commit twenty years of their lives to defending our nation.

His goal is to cut the US military budget by hundreds of billions of dollars and weaken our national defenses. He has demoralized a large portion of the military by his policies on gays in the military, oppression of Christian teachings by military chaplains and his promotion of Muslim teachings and rights in the armed forces.

So while Obama is busy slashing America’s military defenses to pieces, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is doing the exact opposite. He has just committed $772 billion for arms buildup over the next ten years.

For what reason did Putin announce his plans to increase Russia’s military defenses?

Read More at Godfather Politics By Giacomo, Godfather Politics

Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: The States should be in charge, not the Feds

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas.), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that social conservatism is “a losing position” for the Republican Party.

“Do you–are you uncomfortable–certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race,” Crowley asked Paul. “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”

“No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul continued. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Read more at CNS News. By Terence P. Jeffrey.

Ex-Judge Defends Forced Abortion Ruling

 

A retired Massachusetts judge is defending her decision to order a mentally ill woman to have an abortion and be sterilized against her wishes.

Christina Harms is also criticizing Boston University for withdrawing a job offer after her ruling sparked controversy and was overturned by the state Appeals Court.

Harms, who retired last month, defended her ruling in a letter she sent Monday to other Massachusetts family court judges, saying she believed the schizophrenic woman would have chosen to have an abortion if she had been mentally competent. The letter was first reported by The Boston Globe.

Read more at Official Wire. By Associated Press.